0

I saw a recent article supporting Craig Wright's claim to being Satoshi Nakamoto. Other articles about him suggest that most of the community believes he's a scammer, and not actually Nakamoto. The evidence he provided was some signature that apparently proved nothing. On the other hand, Bitcoin developers challenged him to reveal the private key. That seems pretty extreme, as it would allow anyone to spend all his BTC, no?

Wouldn't an appropriate demonstration be to announce that you are going to transfer a very precise but token number of BTC to some wallet, say, a charity? This would preserve everyone's private information, but demonstrate that he has control of Nakamoto's BTC, no? I assume anyone who is unwilling to make such a demonstration would automatically be assumed to be a fraudster. What am I missing?

3
  • This is incorrect. The challenge was to sign a message with that key, not revealing the private key. That would be ridiculous. – Pieter Wuille Jan 23 at 7:18
  • @Prayank That answer seems unrelated. OP is asking whether proving ownership requires revealing a private key (it doesn't; one can sign if one has the private key). The answer you link is about a way of fraudulently convincing people of that without having the private key. – Pieter Wuille Jan 23 at 7:29
  • Yes. Maybe I didn't read the question carefully. Can't be duplicate but maybe related to CSW and his false claims. Retracted close vote and deleted previous comment. – Prayank Jan 23 at 10:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.